Subscribe

December 21, 2013

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a 19th century English historian and prolific writer, held a pervasive anti-Biblical bias. He believed the historical accounts in the Book of Acts were written in the mid-2nd century. Ramsay was skeptical of Luke’s authorship and the historicity of the Book of Acts, and he set out to prove his suspicions. He began a detailed study of the archaeological evidence, and eventually came to an illuminating conclusion: the historical and archaeological evidence supported Luke’s 1st century authorship and historical reliability:

Ramsay became convinced of Luke’s reliability based on the accurate description of historical events and settings. Ramsay wasn’t the only scholar to be impressed by Luke’s accuracy:

“One of the most remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned . . . Cyprus, for example, which was an imperial province until 22 BC, became a senatorial province in that year, and was therefore governed no longer by an imperial legate but by a proconsul. And so, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Cyprus about AD 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paullus whom they met . . .’ (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 82).

Luke’s narratives include detailed and specific descriptions related to the locations, people, offices and titles within the Roman Empire. In fact, many of Luke’s claims were eventually confirmed by archaeological discoveries:

Related to QuiriniusLuke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1–3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.

Related to Erastus In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.” A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence.

Related to LysaniasLuke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14–37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus.

Related to Iconium In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia.

Related to the Pool of BethesdaJohn wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.

Related to Politarchs For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.” Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term).

Related to the Pool of SiloamJohn wrote about the “Pool of Siloam” (John 9:1–12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster).

Related to Pontius PilateFor many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26–36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar.

Related to the Custom of CrucifixionWhile thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype” tomb.

Related to Sergius Paulus In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor” rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul.

In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:

Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)

Comments

Since the christian revelation is based on historical facts then is important to validated these facts with historical proofs and I think the New Testament is the best ancient document with proofs of his veracity.

And I like the conclusion we shouldn't expect to find corroboration for every claim but right now he have a good amount of evidence that gave us reasonable faith that the claims that doesn't have corroboration are correct.

And I like the conclusion we shouldn't expect to find corroboration for every claim but right now he have a good amount of evidence that gave us reasonable faith that the claims that doesn't have corroboration are correct.

In fact, this concept is readily accepted and used by scholars when it comes to other secular ancient texts. For example, no one doubts that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey, and yet we have far less evidence and corroboration for Homer's authenticity than we do for even one book of the New Testament, let alone the whole thing. Even so, scholars are quick to rely on some parts of those works to prop up their ideas about the ancient Greek world...

In fact, Homeric authorship is a huge controversy with no agreeable resolution. More info here.

A far better analogy is Celsus' report that Jesus of Nazareth was fathered by a Roman soldier called Panthera. By Wallace's logic above, this report is "corroborated" by the archaeological discovery of a gravestone dedicated to Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, a standard bearer in a Roman military unit which appears to have been stationed in Judea around the time of Jesus' conception.

Of course, this archaeological discovery does not overcome the implausibility of Celsus' tale. Similarly with the NT.

Pantera, or, Panthera, existed, apparently. Then, parenthood: not so much. It’s a matter of compiling the preponderance of available evidence. 67% trumps 57%.

Methodologically, repeated demonstrations, over time, of scriptural references vs. historicity’s eventual validations thereof have led us to expect future demonstrations to follow similarly successful vectors. This is one of (there are others) the reliability factors of scripture. When one’s presupposition is working methodologically, there seems to be no reason to presume another.

Plausibility comes with the ability to encompass and coherently explain mind’s perceptions. Hence Hawking makes the decision to follow the evidence ever closer towards Genesis 1:1 and leave behind Time and Material in favor of the Timeless Immaterial. Whether he follows the measurable evidence into the coherence of Cosmic Intention, or, whether he presupposes, methodologically, naturalism and chooses to believe in Imaginary Spheres for which we have no measurable evidence still remains to be seen.

The Theist, on all of these fronts, finds no reason to change methodology, as his presuppositions just seem to work.

That’s the encompassing / plausibility thing.

Of course, here too, we find the hopelessness of any attempt to insist upon a diagnosis of Pan-Psychosis on all that is Mind.

Interestingly, everybody knows that Timelessness and Time just do, at some juncture, amalgamate, as Un-Derived touches Derived.